Auto accident wasn’t proximate cause of injuries

Expert says degenerative changes from history of accidents led to condition

A jury in Oakland County Circuit Court determined that defendant Shixi Hu’s actions in an auto accident were not the proximate cause of case plaintiff Nicole Marie Kyle’s injuries, and that plaintiff was not entitled to economic and non-economic damages.

On Oct. 5, 2009, Hu rear-ended Kyle’s vehicle. The impact was alleged to have caused Kyle severe neck, mid-back and low back pain, and having herniated discs at C4-5, C5-6 and T7-8. Kyle initially underwent conservative treatment with physical therapy and medications, but ultimately had three epidural blocks and three nerve ablations to assist with her pain.

Two and half years later, Kyle claimed she was still in pain, required future medical care and lost her job in sales as a result of the accident.

At trial, plaintiff claimed both non-economic and economic damages totaling $250,000. In support, plaintiff presented a number of witnesses, including her father, a co-worker and a handyman to prove that she was not the same person she was after the accident.

In addition, plaintiff presented medical evidence from her physicians indicating that the accident was the source of her problems, and that she would require further medical treatment for the rest of her life. Her physicians also testified that as a result of her injuries, she would be required to be on lifetime restrictions regarding heavier household chores and driving, which directly affected her career in sales.

It was argued that, due to the injuries from the accident, she was unable to drive for her sales job, and this limitation in her sales lead to her reduction in commissions and, ultimately, her future earnings.

Defendant argued that plaintiff had multiple previous auto accidents and, as a result, was injured from those accidents. In support, defendant argued that plaintiff complained of nearly the exact same complaints in this accident as she had in her prior accidents.

It also was pointed out that plaintiff never told her doctors about these prior accidents and injuries, and, when asked, intentionally denied having any similar previous problems.

Further, defendant maintained through its expert that plaintiff’s injuries were simply degenerative changes as demonstrated on the MRI films, and were simply not caused by the accident.

Defendant also argued that surveillance video taken of plaintiff showed that she was not as restricted as she claimed, and was able to do many things, such as driving, shopping, etc. In light of the surveillance, defendant argued that it was clear she did not need help with household chores in the future.

Lastly, defendant argued that plaintiff’s economic claim was not related to the accident. In support, defendant had plaintiff’s prior employer testify, who confirmed the same. Also, defendant’s accounting expert testified that plaintiff did not have an excess wage claim, and that, instead, the amounts claimed were the responsibility of the PIP carrier.